From the point of view of their critics, the fight for safe spaces always has been employing motte-and-bailey tactics [1], where the defensible and reasonable p

From the point of view of their critics, the fight for safe spaces always has been employing motte-and-bailey tactics [1], where the defensible and reasonable position is that people want some space where they can relax, but the indefensible position that they actually fight for is that the whole world should be converted into a safe space for themselves. As a point in case, as far as I can tell nobody ever insisted that attendance at talks by controversial university speakers be compulsory, or that particular groups of students who felt threatened by them not be allowed to form social clubs or set up meeting spaces in which the opinions from those events are not allowed to be mentioned. [1] https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-motte-and-the-bailey-a-rhetorical-strategy-to-know/ https://heterodoxacademy.org/the-motte-and-the-bailey-a-rhet...